State v. Rippy

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Bobby James
Rippy, Appellant.

Appeal From Dillon County

Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-167

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March
7, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold Coombs, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Bobby
James Rippy appeals his convictions for second-degree burglary and larceny,
arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found
at his residence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities:  State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50,
625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) (noting the duty of an appellate court reviewing the
issuance of a search warrant is to ensure the magistrate had a substantial
basis upon which to conclude that probable cause existed); id. (stating that a magistrate may issue a search
warrant upon a finding of probable cause, a determination requiring him
"to make a practical, common-sense decision
whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him,
including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay
information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime
will be found in a particular place" (quoting Illinois v. Gates,
462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Weston, 329 S.C. 287, 290, 494
S.E.2d 801, 802 (1997) ("A search warrant that is insufficient in itself
to establish probable cause may be supplemented by sworn oral testimony."); State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 260-61, 460 S.E.2d 403, 405-06 (Ct. App.
1995) (holding an affidavit indicating appellant's presence during a burglary
in close proximity to the place burglarized and his connection to the place
provided the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding probable cause
existed to search appellant's apartment).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., and
CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.